[Bug middle-end/40172] New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap ia ia64

[Bug middle-end/40172] New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap ia ia64

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

Revision 147596:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00572.html

breaks bootstrap on ia64. A testcase:

[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i
struct rtx_def;
typedef struct rtx_def *rtx; 

extern int foo;
extern int bar;

extern int test (void);
extern int xxx;

int
test (void)
{
  if (((rtx) 0 != (rtx) 0) && xxx ? foo : bar)
    return 1;
  else
  return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -Wall -W -O2 -Werror -S /tmp/x.i
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/tmp/x.i: In function ‘test’:
/tmp/x.i:13: error: logical ‘and’ of mutually exclusive tests is always false
[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$


-- 
           Summary: [4.5 Regression]  Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap ia
                    ia64
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug middle-end/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |blocker
            Summary|[4.5 Regression]  Revision  |[4.5 Regression]  Revision
                   |147596 breaks bootstrap ia  |147596 breaks bootstrap
                   |ia64                        |
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug middle-end/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap ia ia64

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-16 15:18 -------
*** Bug 40169 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dominiq at lps dot ens dot
                   |                            |fr


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-05-16 15:31 -------
This has also been reported at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00974.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 878 bytes --]



------- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-16 16:12 -------
Here is a testcase for more problems:

[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i 
struct rtx_def;
typedef struct rtx_def *rtx; 

extern int foo;
extern int bar;
extern int xxx;

int
test (void)
{
  if (((rtx) 0 != (rtx) 0) && xxx ? foo : bar)
    return 1;
  else if ((foo & 0) && xxx)
    return 2;
  else if (foo & 0)
    return 3;
  else if (0 && xxx)
    return 4;
  else if (0)
    return 5;
  else
    return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -Wall -W -O2 -Werror -S /tmp/x.i
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/tmp/x.i: In function ‘test’:
/tmp/x.i:11: error: logical ‘and’ of mutually exclusive tests is always false
/tmp/x.i:13: error: logical ‘and’ of mutually exclusive tests is always false
[hjl@gnu-12 prev-gcc]$ 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 03:08 -------
Also breaks bootstrap on hppa.


-- 

danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 17:11 -------
This patch seems to fix the problem and still warn for the interesting cases.
Could you all test it in your targets? I can only test
x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Index: gcc/c-common.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/c-common.c      (revision 147636)
+++ gcc/c-common.c      (working copy)
@@ -1782,14 +1782,12 @@ warn_logical_operator (location_t locati
      again at the end.  */
   if (or_op)
     in0_p = !in0_p, in1_p = !in1_p;

   /* If both expressions are the same, if we can merge the ranges, and we
-     can build the range test, return it or it inverted.  If one of the
-     ranges is always true or always false, consider it to be the same
-     expression as the other.  */
-  if ((lhs == 0 || rhs == 0 || operand_equal_p (lhs, rhs, 0))
+     can build the range test, return it or it inverted.  */
+  if (lhs && rhs && operand_equal_p (lhs, rhs, 0)
       && merge_ranges (&in_p, &low, &high, in0_p, low0, high0,
                       in1_p, low1, high1)
       && 0 != (tem = build_range_check (type,
                                        lhs != 0 ? lhs
                                        : rhs != 0 ? rhs : integer_zero_node,


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-05-17 17:11:44
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-17 18:05 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> This patch seems to fix the problem and still warn for the interesting cases.
> Could you all test it in your targets? I can only test
> x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> 

The testcase in comment #3 isn't target specific. You should include
it in your patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]



------- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 18:37 -------
Subject: Bug 40172

Author: hjl
Date: Sun May 17 18:36:44 2009
New Revision: 147639

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147639
Log:
gcc/

2009-05-17  Manuel López-Ibáñez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR c/40172
        * c-common.c (warn_logical_operator): Don't warn if one of
        expression isn't always true or false.

gcc/testscase/

2009-05-17  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR c/40172
        * gcc.dg/pr40172.c: New.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/c-common.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-17 19:25 -------
Fixed.


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 20:02 -------
Still does not fix the PPC-darwin bootstrap:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/gcc/toplev.c: In function 'process_options':
/Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/gcc/toplev.c:2043: error: logical 'and' of mutually
exclusive tests is always false

  if (!FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD && flag_stack_protect)


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-17 20:14 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Still does not fix the PPC-darwin bootstrap:
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> /Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/gcc/toplev.c: In function 'process_options':
> /Users/regress/tbox/svn-gcc/gcc/toplev.c:2043: error: logical 'and' of mutually
> exclusive tests is always false
> 
>   if (!FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD && flag_stack_protect)
> 

This warning may be correct:

rs6000.h:#define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (flag_stack_protect != 0)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 20:17 -------
Maybe the warning is correct but with macros like this, it is hard to avoid the
warning really.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 20:20 -------
I don't think this warning is particularly useful if it breaks even GCC.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-17 20:47 -------
If GCC does not want to be warned about

if (!x && x)

then the warning is not useful for GCC. Then take it out of -Wextra. But it is
definitely useful for others, and it found a bug in IRA.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-18 21:10 -------
For the record:  This affects mips64-linux as well.


-- 

daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2009-05-17 17:11:44         |2009-05-18 21:10:16
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]



------- Comment #15 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-18 22:35 -------
And yet another place:

../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical ‘or’ of collectively
exhaustive tests is always true
../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical ‘or’ of collectively
exhaustive tests is always true
../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical ‘or’ of collectively
exhaustive tests is always true
../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical ‘or’ of collectively
exhaustive tests is always true


Can we either get the patch reverted, or move it out of -Wextra?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #16 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com  2009-05-18 22:56 -------
Just to chime in, the warning is a useful warning, but the way rs6000 and mips
define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD, the test in toplev.c will never succeed.  

I can see a couple of ways to fix this:
1) Revert the patch that moves this warning to -Wextra.  I think this is a bad
idea, since the warning does seem to be useful.

2) Disable the check in toplev.c.  Again, I think this is useful in general,
but as an immediate palative, it can be useful.

3) Add a new macro to say not to do the test in #2, and define it in mips and
rs6000.  This is doable, but in general it is not a good idea to add new global
macros like this.

4) Change mips and rs6000 to have a global variable that is what
FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD should be.  This is certainly doable.  The test will be
tested at runtime, but never invoke the error message.

5) Move FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (and STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD, etc.) into the target
structure, and set the field in the target structure from the macro.  I tend to
like this (and eventually move backends to set the field directly and get rid
of the macros).  I tend to like this idea best.


-- 

meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |meissner at linux dot vnet
                   |                            |dot ibm dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-18 23:03 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Just to chime in, the warning is a useful warning, but the way rs6000 and mips
> define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD, the test in toplev.c will never succeed.  
> 

> 5) Move FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (and STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD, etc.) into the target
> structure, and set the field in the target structure from the macro.  I tend to

Can't we change it to

  if (!FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD)
    {  
      if (flag_stack_protect)
        {  
          warning (0, "-fstack-protector not supported for this target");
          flag_stack_protect = 0;
        }      
    }        

with a comment?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-18 23:13 -------
The following patch moves the warning out of Wextra. I haven't tested it,
though. 

Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 147679)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -2806,7 +2806,6 @@
 @gccoptlist{-Wclobbered  @gol
 -Wempty-body  @gol
 -Wignored-qualifiers @gol
--Wlogical-op @gol
 -Wmissing-field-initializers  @gol
 -Wmissing-parameter-type @r{(C only)}  @gol
 -Wold-style-declaration @r{(C only)}  @gol
@@ -3793,8 +3792,7 @@
 @opindex Wno-logical-op
 Warn about suspicious uses of logical operators in expressions.
 This includes using logical operators in contexts where a
-bit-wise operator is likely to be expected.  This warning is enabled by
-@option{-Wextra}.
+bit-wise operator is likely to be expected.

 @item -Waggregate-return
 @opindex Waggregate-return
Index: gcc/c-opts.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/c-opts.c        (revision 147679)
+++ gcc/c-opts.c        (working copy)
@@ -1073,8 +1073,6 @@
     warn_override_init = extra_warnings;
   if (warn_ignored_qualifiers == -1)
     warn_ignored_qualifiers = extra_warnings;
-  if (warn_logical_op == -1)
-    warn_logical_op = extra_warnings;

   /* -Wpointer-sign is disabled by default, but it is enabled if any
      of -Wall or -pedantic are given.  */


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2009-05-18 21:10:16         |2009-05-18 23:13:34
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-18 23:32 -------
Created an attachment (id=17890)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17890&action=view)
Proposed fix.

I am testing this patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #20 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com  2009-05-18 23:48 -------
David, as I said in my message, this patch is just papering over the problem. 
While we might want to install this patch temporarily, to get the mips and
rs6000 building again, I think a better solution is to change the circular
dependency between FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD and flag_stack_protect, so at the point
of the test in toplev.c the compiler won't give this warning.

H. J. the problem with your patch is it that the compiler is likely to still
issue the warning, since it will be discovered by the dataflow or SSA parts of
the compiler.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 00:02 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Just to chime in, the warning is a useful warning, but the way rs6000 and mips
> define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD, the test in toplev.c will never succeed.  

Yes and that is correct because we don't want that code to be involved at all. 
The whole if statement becomes false (which is a good thing we can detect it as
being always false).

> 
> I can see a couple of ways to fix this:
> 1) Revert the patch that moves this warning to -Wextra.  I think this is a bad
> idea, since the warning does seem to be useful.
> 
> 2) Disable the check in toplev.c.  Again, I think this is useful in general,
> but as an immediate palative, it can be useful.
>
> 3) Add a new macro to say not to do the test in #2, and define it in mips and
> rs6000.  This is doable, but in general it is not a good idea to add new global
> macros like this.

This is not a good option at all.  

a seperate option which I mentioned in an email rather than this bug report. 
So the current issue here is that we have:

if (!DEFINED && x != 0)

Where DEFINED is a macro which says (x != 0).
This gets expanded as:
if (!(x!=0) && x!=0)

Obviously to the trained eye this would be a good warning but guess what
DEFINED just happens to be based on x, it does not have to be.

It would be nice to say only warn for x1 && !x2 if (obviously x1 == x2) :
if either x1 or !x2 is from a macro but not both

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #22 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-19 00:38 -------
Another patch is posted at

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01187.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #23 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com  2009-05-19 02:33 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5 Regression]  Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:38:08AM -0000, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> 
> 
> ------- Comment #22 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-19 00:38 -------
> Another patch is posted at
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01187.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

I still feel that if this patch is put in, we eventually will have the same
discussion, as the compiler gets smarter about flow control and propigation,
since semantically:

      if (test1)
        {
          if (test2)
            {
              /* ... */
            }
        }

is the same as:

        if (test1 && test2)
          {
            /* ... */
          }


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #24 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-05-19 02:37 -------
(In reply to comment #23)
> Subject: Re:  [4.5 Regression]  Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap
> 

> I still feel that if this patch is put in, we eventually will have the same
> discussion, as the compiler gets smarter about flow control and propigation,

This particular warning comes from front-end. I don't think front-end
will do such transformation.

> since semantically:
> 
>       if (test1)
>         {
>           if (test2)
>             {
>               /* ... */
>             }
>         }
> 
> is the same as:
> 
>         if (test1 && test2)
>           {
>             /* ... */
>           }
> 

Gcc can eliminate many dead codes today. I don't think we will ever warn
any of them, if at all.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]



------- Comment #25 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 19:29 -------
Subject: Bug 40172

Author: manu
Date: Tue May 19 19:29:27 2009
New Revision: 147717

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147717
Log:
2009-05-19  Manuel López-Ibáñez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR c/40172
gcc/
        * c.opt (Wlogical-op): Disabled by default.
        * c-opt (c_common_post_options): Do not enable Wlogical-op with
        Wextra.
        * doc/invoke.texi (Wlogical-op): Likewise.
testsuite/
        * gcc.dg/pr40172.c: Add -Wlogical-op to dg-options.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/c-opts.c
    trunk/gcc/c.opt
    trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]



------- Comment #26 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 20:29 -------
The case in toplev.c cannot be fixed without tracking macro expansions somehow,
but I wonder why it warns (multiple times!) for this case:

> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
> exhaustive tests is always true
> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
> exhaustive tests is always true
> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
> exhaustive tests is always true
> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
> exhaustive tests is always true

David, could you produce a testcase?

Anyway, moved out of Wextra, so bootstrap should be fixed now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1421 bytes --]



------- Comment #27 from ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com  2009-05-19 20:58 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5 Regression]  Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #26 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 20:29 -------
> The case in toplev.c cannot be fixed without tracking macro expansions somehow,
> but I wonder why it warns (multiple times!) for this case:
> 
>> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
>> exhaustive tests is always true
>> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
>> exhaustive tests is always true
>> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
>> exhaustive tests is always true
>> ../../trunk/gcc/config/mips/sb1.md:159: error: logical �or� of collectively
>> exhaustive tests is always true
> 
> David, could you produce a testcase?
> 

It is in insn-attrtab.c, which is machine generated.

I since the fatal warning is now disabled, it should be fine.

The problem with insn-attrtab.c is that it is generated from the .md 
files and then includes all the target macros.  So for this file you 
should probably never use -Wlogical-ops as filters that try to eliminate 
things in macros will fail.  The whole file is conceptually one big macro.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #28 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 21:17 -------
Subject: Bug 40172

Author: hjl
Date: Tue May 19 21:17:00 2009
New Revision: 147719

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147719
Log:
2009-05-19  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR c/40172
        * gcc.dg/pr40172.c: Renamed to ...
        * gcc.dg/pr40172-1.c: This.

        * gcc.dg/pr40172-2.c: New.
        * gcc.dg/pr40172-3.c: Likewise.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-1.c
      - copied unchanged from r147718, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-2.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-3.c
Removed:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #29 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-19 21:24 -------
Subject: Bug 40172

Author: hjl
Date: Tue May 19 21:24:23 2009
New Revision: 147720

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147720
Log:
2009-05-19  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        Backport from mainline:
        2009-05-19  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

        PR c/40172
        * gcc.dg/pr40172-1.c: New.
        * gcc.dg/pr40172-2.c: Likewise.
        * gcc.dg/pr40172-3.c: Likewise.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-1.c
      - copied unchanged from r147719, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-1.c
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-2.c
      - copied unchanged from r147719, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-2.c
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-3.c
      - copied, changed from r147719, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40172-3.c
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172

[Bug c/40172] [4.5 Regression] Revision 147596 breaks bootstrap

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-21 11:05 -------
Fixed.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172